Judgment :- Taluk Land Board, Thalassery directed petitioner to surrender an extent of 2 acres and 531/2 cents of land as excess land vide proceedings in TLB.-688/73/TLY. The civil revision petition filed before this Court challenging that order was dismissed on 6-1-1986. Possession of the land was taken on 23-7-1986: An application was preferred by petitioner before Taluk Land Board under S.85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms act requesting to set aside the order and to proceed under sub-section (5) of S.85. That application was also dismissed. 2. Subsequent to the introduction of sub-section (9A) of S.85 an application was presented before the Taluk Land Board to review its decision. That application was dismissed on the ground that S.85(9)(A) does not give any right to the parties to file an application before the Taluk Land Board. That order of the Land Board is under challenge in this revision filed under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act. 3. Heard counsel for petitioner. 4. Sub-section (9A) of S.85 of the Land Reforms Act was introduced by the Amendment Act 16 of 1989. That sub-section reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, the Taluk Land Board may, if it is satisfied that its decision under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) or sub-section (9) requires to be reviewed on the ground that such decision has been made due to the failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession before it, or by collusion or fraud or any suppression of material facts the Taluk Land Board may review such decision after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and pass such orders as it may think fit: Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not reopen any such case after the expiry of three years from the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989." 5. Interpreting this sub-section a learned Single Judge of this Court in Chenaji v. Taluk Land Board (1991 (1) KLT770) held that the review power cannot be exercised by the declarant or any aggrieved person whereas the Land Board alone is given the power to review its decision under the circumstances enumerated. Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, learned counsel for petitioner points out that this view is not warranted by the provisions in the sub-section and that the same requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. 6. It is argued that the power granted to the Land Board under sub-section (9A) is not the suo mote power of the Land Board whereas the power is one exercisable by the Board on an application by the declarant or any aggrieved person. Counsel points out that whenever the legislature intended suo mote powers to be given to a Tribunal to revise its orders specific provision would have been made. Attention is drawn to S.264 of the Incometax Act 1961 which enables the Commissioner of Incometax to call for the record of any proceeding under the Act in the case of any order other than an order to which S.263 applies. In such a case the Commissioner may either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision make such enquiry and pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the assessee as he thinks fit. Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A of Kerala Education Rules enables the Government to revise any order passed by a subordinate authority on their own motion or otherwise. The absence of the expressions "suo mote" or "of its own motion" in sub-section (9A) would indicate that the power granted under the sub-section can be exercised only on an application of the aggrieved party, argues counsel. But such a view is not possible in view of the reasons mentioned in the sub-section which enable the Taluk Land Board to review its decision. 7. The sub-section was introduced by Act 16 of 1989. In the statement of objects and reasons accompanying the Bill reason for the introduction of this sub-section is stated thus: "It has come to the notice of Government that as a result of collusion of the declarant and authorised officers and members of Taluk Land Board, declarants have escaped from surrendering the surplus land to Government. In the statement of objects and reasons accompanying the Bill reason for the introduction of this sub-section is stated thus: "It has come to the notice of Government that as a result of collusion of the declarant and authorised officers and members of Taluk Land Board, declarants have escaped from surrendering the surplus land to Government. There is at present no provision to re-open such cases. It is considered necessary to confer the power for re-opening such cases on Taluk Land Boards by amending S.85 of the Act for the purpose". The grounds mentioned are: (i) The decision has been made due to failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession (ii) collusion or fraud or any suppression of material facts. The Taluk Land Board can review its decision only if one or other of these grounds is available. It is then open to the Land Board to review the decision after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and pass such orders as it may think fit. Even earlier the Taluk Land Board had power to set aside its order under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of S.85 and proceed afresh if it is satisfied that the extent of land surrendered by or assumed from a person is less than the extent of lands which he was liable to surrender under the provisions of the Act or the lands surrendered or assumed from that person are not lawfully owned or held by him or in a case where a person is according to such order not liable to surrender any land such person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area. This power of the Land Board could be exercised at any time within the period of three years from the date on which the order has become final. This provision was introduced by the Amendment of the Land Reforms Act by Act 25 of 1971. The remedy to get the order set aside was available only to the Land Board and that could be exercised at any time within the prescribed period of three years. The declarant or any aggrieved person was not entitled to get the order set aside. The remedy to get the order set aside was available only to the Land Board and that could be exercised at any time within the prescribed period of three years. The declarant or any aggrieved person was not entitled to get the order set aside. The remedy of the declarant is only to file a revision under S.103 of the Act against the final order passed by the Land Board and that of an aggrieved person is to apply to the Taluk Land Board to set aside the order in case the extent of land was ordered to be surrendered without hearing him. That being the position when sub-section (1A) was introduced and in view of the objects and reasons for introducing this sub-section the contention of the learned counsel that the right conferred under this section to get the order reviewed can be exercised by a declarant or an aggrieved person is unsustainable. There cannot be any collusion or fraud or suppression of material facts to the disadvantage of the declarant or the aggrieved person. If at all there is any collusion or fraud or suppression of material facts it can only be to get an advantage and see that the land ordered to be surrendered is less than what is surrenderable under law. Similar is the case with failure to produce relevant data or other particulars relating to ownership or possession. The sub-section is therefore not intended to enable a declarant or an aggrieved person to get the order reviewed but only to enable the Land Board to review its order on satisfaction of any of the grounds enumerated therein. I am therefore incomplete agreement with the view expressed in 1991 (1) KLT 770 (supra). The Land Board was therefore right in rejecting the request of revision petitioner and in dismissing his application. No error has been committed warranting interference in revision. For the reasons mentioned above the revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine.